Would you prefer an old guy with a beard who lounges on a cloud? Or maybe something more tangible that should be evident to all?
Yes indeed, a pattern evolved from and formed by a pseudo-intelligent (logical) mathematical function. But ask yourself, what other sentient being required a sentient god to precede humans by hundreds of millions of years and still going strong. The insect conquered flight, horticulture, husbandry, long distance communication long before humans were even evolved from tree dwelling hominid ancestors. All without prayer!
Were you ever required to pray for what was given to you? Neither was I. But maybe we should give thanks.
What I would prefer is an honest attempt by you to answer honestly and without beating around the bush. Is it not one of the principles of decency to treat others as you would like to be treated? Would you not feel annoyed if others treated you the way you treat others? Really look at your approach and ask yourself if you would like to ask a question and have your question avoided. I ask you a direct question and you throw it back as what in the sales game we call a closing question...a question that no matter how you answer has you buying the goods.. Your either or question when answered establishes your position. Its trickery...is that all you are about? I am not a buyer so dont give me this "your pen or mine" or "which do you prefer the red one or the blue one" I want an answer are you unable to give an honest answer? Your approach is not smart or clever but transparently a dishonest approach and if you dont grasp that proposition then I suggest that you are being dishonest with yourself and that is terrible. People wonder what is sucess well for me it is the abiloty to be honest with yourself and others...without that one is nothing and just a pretender. You seem like a decent sort of a chap so I wonder why you are so evasive. It is not a good look. If you ask me something I answer directly to the best of my ability....so why cant you be honest and answer rather than coming back with a question. Can you answer that one question please. Why do you feel the need to evade all questions. I mean really I ask you for your view and you ask me what is my preference. ..my preference has nothing to do with your answer. Have you been brainwashed to the degree that you will support the God story even if it means you throw out your self respect? And I am not asking you to change your belief so dont feel threatened I am just curious to know what you think...So please try and be a straight shooter and stop your evasive responces as it comes over as shallow. Alex
If I told you that you are sacred, your being, would that be enough honesty to satisfy your questions?
Still with the questions after all my effort to point out how obnoxious I regard such a method. I think they drowned your brain during the washing☺ Let me ask you a question... Have you stopped beating your wife☺. Alex
I'm pointing at you. If I leave you with one thought, it is that God loves you. Always has and always will. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Who should we thank and why? Nothing is given to you. You have to work for it, just like ants. But please note how you introduced guilt unwittingly into the conversation. This is the yoke which is placed around your neck by religion and the practice of maintaining power in all things spiritual. Prayer or giving thanks will not save the planet! Responsible behavior will.
I know that...look what he lets me get away with☺ my honesty is maybe something novel to him. Its not me that I worry about...its all those poor victims out there that suffer so much and clearly God does not love them. Why am I his favorite do you think? What do I say to those poor folk who suffer needlessly.. Let me try☺. God works in mysterious ways. Its all in Gods plan. God took your only child so he could be with God. Or perhaps...clearly you have offended God and he is paying you back big time. You know my grand mother lost a child and the priest actually said to her she was being punished for her sins...what a cruel nasty lie to tell a grief stricken mother. I sometimes think there is at least a devil who put the idea of God in the hands of weak minded humans to entertain himself by enjoying their stupidity. I hope enlightenment does not keep eluding you and that the day comes when you are able to handle the truth if you should ever come across it. Alex
Don't know how saying thank you implies guilt. If you gave me something it would be appropriate to thank you for the gift. Work can also be a gift, more so when it is a job you enjoy.
And what does this have to do with the Universe being created by a sentient motivated Being? He created the Universe just for you to enjoy your job? What about slavery? That's a job too.
No, because I am sane, unlike some scriptures which espouse slavery in the name of God and written by people who "knew" God and his purpose.
Relativity is a theory of gravity (a classical theory). It doesn't work well at the quantum level. Quantum physics doesn't work well at the classical level. There isn't yet a quantum theory of gravity. Quantum physics is largely about the other 3 forces (strong, weak, electro-magnetic). The Big Bang doesn't say anything about the creation of the Universe because that would require (according to Relativity) a Singularity. Physicists know that the math breaks down there so they describe what physics can describe. That still isn't good enough so they now generally describe inflation just before the Big Bang but the physics for that isn't known either therefore the predictions and evidence for the Big Bang all come after that point. The evidence doesn't point to the Steady State model however. The facts are that about 14 billion years ago the observable universe was hotter and denser and smaller than it is now. The Steady State model would suggest that 14 billion years ago things would have been much as they are now. What came before the Big Bang is currently unknown but it could be that the universe has always existed and the Big Bang could still be the most accurate description that we currently have. A lot depends one how one uses the word "Universe". In general usage we think of the Universe is absolute terms, everything that there is. Physicists often use "Universe" and "Observable Universe" as equivalent terms. It appears that our observable universe came to be roughly 14 billion years ago from something small, dense and hot to something larger, less dense and cooler today. What happened before that hasn't been determined. There could be universes coming into and going out of existence all the time, the universe could be eternal. We have no way of knowing that currently. It is possible that we may know the answer at some point. If the math is perfected to the point where you don't have the problems bringing classical systems and quantum systems together there may be a formula that suggests an answer (or not). It's not currently really a failure of any kind for these questions to not be answered. Relativity works great in the realms for which it was intended and the same holds true for quantum physics. Actually quantum physics is likely to need to change less than relativity. My (limited) understanding is that Relativity breaks down around the Singularity and Quantum Physics doesn't scale up and produces energy requirements that are vastly larger than we observe in the real world (classical world).
Firstly thank you for all your input. It is nice to hear from you. The Big Bang theory is indeed the accepted theory at this point which followsand calls upon General Relativity for support and the theory suggests that if we follow the observed expansion back we will end up at a point which you describe as a singularity. I find it curious that when the theory was first presented it did not claim inflation(in fact the lack of inflation near crushed the theory) and as I understand, it was the observed expansion of the universe that was used to take us back thanks to Hubble ..so it has me wondering how with each approach we got back to a singularity... or am I mistaken and the first presentation of the Big Bang Theory did not take us back to a singularity. I dont know but if my observation is correct I feel there is an inconsistency. Oh I know the theory gets ammended as things develop but do you see what I see here and if so what do you think? And think of the lithium prediction...oh no lithium well it was there and it was destroyed by such and such a process so its absence is proof the theory is correct...its like you cant win..any other theory failing on a prediction is out the door..look at the short shift the steady state model recieved...it certainly felt the harshness of one fail and you are out. The theory takes us past observation however our observation that takes us closestto an aledged start is the background radiation which was not generated when the universe was small. Certainly the Big Bang Theory tells us why we observe background radiation according to that theory... thats ok but the fact remains we have no observation pre radiation and the radiation is only explained by the theory...could there be another interpretation of the background radiation? Well of course not any one who suggests there may be another explanation is howled down as a fool and a crack pot etc...that initself does not sound very science like but exactly what you can expect from a dogmatic religious approach. However we can not observe anything past the background radiation as I understand it.... there is nothing to suggest the universe was small dense and hot other than the theory.. At the point where background radiation was generated the Universe was quiet large was it not? Therefore I say that we have nothing in the way of an observation that tells us the universe was small hot and dense...perhaps so before I go further let me ask...How large was the Universe when the background radiation was generated? Is it not correct that we rely upon the theory to tell us that the universe was dense hot and small or is there some physical observation that tells us it was small hot and dense? I am pretty sure there is no observation and we rely upon the prediction of the theory on this point. Was the universe at the point of generation of the background radiation small hot and dense? I dont think so and therefore suggest that we only make that conclusion because of the theory. I dont think the universe at the point when the back ground radiation was generated was small at all small according to the Big Bang Theory..The background radiation came from an era where I think the universe was"inflated" and the radiation was generated at a point where the universe had grown to an very large size (according to the theory) ..or so I understand but if you know more please correct me on this point. So what points to the universe being small hot and dense beyond what the theory predictes. I dont think there is a physical observation that we can interprete to tell us that the universe was small hot and dense...we form that opinion from the prediction of the theory...and I have no doubt that the maths via General Relativity must support that conclusion but good geometry can be used to build a good house or indeed a bad one.. . I am sure that I have said it earlier but in my view the Big Bang Theory parrallels the churches view of creation far too closely.. and certainly many christians and Muslims claim the Big Bang Theory supports their belief in God...sure the theory does not deal with creation but only starts to make predictions an zillionth of a second after the "start"... I think that must lead even the most radical atheist to a point where they can say well that seems like a God act... I mean the science takes us all the way back but has nothing to offer for a moment earlier...does that not seem very strange..well it does to me. So the theory came from acatholic priest and after a period where the church was somewhat preoccupied with the notion of a cosmic egg...the idea preceeded the science...the idea came from a priest..sure a scientist and a great one no doubt but I suggest he was a priest first and a scientist second and I personally believe the science was to fit the belief. Now before you call me crazy I think that when the Big Bang Theory was first proposed many scientists shared my concerns .. The theory was not readily accepted because many scientists felt more or less as I still feel about the matter. I think I have relied upon facts as I believe it to be but I raise this here because it is worthy of discusssion..but I bet there is none prepared to do so as the subject is too hot to discuss.. ...we have no evidence the universe was ever small hot and dense as the theory asks us to conclude...the first observation does not tell us that at all. I think it is a great pity we have no quantum theory of gravity as I think it is impossible to understand our universe with out knowing how gravity works..I mean imagine you are at a race track and you take notes on the speed of the cars etc and yet not knowing how a internal combustion engine works you then proceed to tell everyone you know all there is to know about car racing..GR proceeds without knowing how gravity works.. Does anyone see that as a problem or is it just crack pot me.. if we knew how gravityt worked we could understand what may be going on with galaxy rotation curves ... after all they simply dont follow General Relativity which although correct on all the tests we give it may be wrong here as it seems inconceivable that such a great portion of the universe can only be determined by the equations of general relativity...surely the maths should follow observation not make the observations fit the maths and pre determined view of what we should observe...how much dark matter do we need for GR to work...it seems odd to me...and I know we cant see air etc but claiming GR cant be wrong is silly in my view and probably will hold us from working out dark matter is probably a myth. Would you bet the life of your kids that it cant be wrong and dark matter is not a myth? and yet that is how certian mainstream supports the notion. However folk wont consider General Relativity could be wrong on one small aspect for fear it would all be thrown out...well Newtonian Gravity worked well and still does and although it could not give us sums to predict Mercurys behaviour it still allows us to plot the course for space craft all around and out of the Solar System... General Relativity must be absolutely correct or else other things may be questioned like the moment before the start...is that why it cant be wrong on any point? I have said it before the Big Bang is far to close to a creation approach for me to ever feel comfortable that it has the period up to the back ground radiation correct. And I see it wont change soon..who with a science career will get money to find a different answer... sadly it wont happen...so in my view it is conceivable the religion has hidden yet again truth from us ... I hope it is not a crime to hold my view... and I bet I will get more fire from thinking this than any theists will get in believing in their imaginary friend. I still think Dr A was probably leaned on..he thought the universe was static, and yet look at the about face he did..thats understandable if the man had just thought steady state was a good idea and arrived at that view in a rather casual manner but he put lots of thought into all he did ..so why would he change course so fast...and then to say he made the biggest blunder of his life...folk like that just dont roll over so easily and give up on something they put years of thought into..think about it... it does not add up... So forget my rambling and answer this... do you know of any observation that tells us that the universe was small dense and hot? alex
Think it comes from imaging current expansion in reverse until it gets so small and dense generating the heat Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
